Fulmar in 1941/42/43: feasible and/or plausible upgrades?

[RCAFson]

Operational in 1942 - Purely hypothetical and not worth pursuing. Needed extra HP - see below...



??? Are you honestly saying that building in an extra cockpit didn't exact a performance penalty?? An extra crew member alone = at least 200 lb. Add cockpit, seat, armour etc, plus extra fuselage structure and larger wings = at least another 1,500 lbs. The Firefly was larger and heavier than it would have been had it required one cockpit and would have had a much better performance with the same power given by the Griffon.

Firefly internal fuel carried = 192 imp gal plus up to 180 imp gal external (2 x 90 gal drop tanks). P-51B/C = 153 imp gal plus a 71 imp gal fuselage tank (albeit the latter led to instability until part emptied) + 2 x 75 imp gal drop tanks (or 2x 125 gal ferry tanks).

Read the specifications and show us where a 2,000 lb bomb load was required:




This isn't to deny the abilities of Firefly aircrew, but a single seat fighter with comparable engine power, firepower and range would have been far more useful to the FAA in 1942. Again, the Firefly was larger and heavier than it needed to be because of that second cockpit.



And it never really encountered decent fighter opposition - had the Firefly operated in the strategic and tactical situation imposed in SE Asia by the Japanese in 1942 it might not have fared nearly as well.

Your specification sheets are incomplete and they dont include additional requirements - such as 180rgp instead of 60 and the capability for DT and bombs which even the Fulmar had to meet.

Yes, I can honestly state that it didn't add extra weight (well maybe 400lb or 3% for the observer and seat) because, as I've stated, USN fighters with the same fuel and weapons load had approximately the same weight. Heck even the F4F-4 weighed almost 8000lbs with only 120IG of internal fuel, and if the airframe was redesigned to accept more fuel, then weight would inevitably climb. The fuselage of a large fighter aircraft is almost empty anyway so adding an extra seat was not a major source of extra weight, but the observer also contributed to the aircraft's combat effectiveness by providing extra visibility and by removing some of the work load from the pilot. Another factor is that long range voice communications were not generally possible in 1938/39 until 1942 so that morse code had to be used for long range com links, and this was very difficult for a single crewmember.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Another factor is that long range voice communications were not generally possible in 1938/39 until 1942 so that morse code had to be used for long range com links, and this was very difficult for a single crewmember.

And why do you think it was so difficult?

 

[RCAFson]

And why do you think it was so difficult?

It might be possible under still air conditions for the pilot to use morse, but pretty much impossible if he encounters flak and/or enemy fighters as would be expected for a long range recon aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It might be possible under still air conditions for the pilot to use morse

It might? It is!!! - once the plane is trimmed and you're in cruise flight, no more difficult than calculating DR or talking on a conventional radio, even in light or moderate turbulence.

Be advised that some folks on here do fly and have done similar tasks while flying solo....

but pretty much impossible if he encounters flak and/or enemy fighters as would be expected for a long range recon aircraft.

When one is in combat and getting shot at, the last thing you're going to do is worry about communicating, you fly the aircraft first, communicate when you can..

1. Aviate
2. Navigate
3. Communicate

Still the rule today...

 

[Aozora]

Your specification sheets are incomplete and they dont include additional requirements - such as 180rgp instead of 60 and the capability for DT and bombs which even the Fulmar had to meet.

Well then, how about showing us what you call the complete specifications and/or where the supposed requirements for extra loads, particularly the "2,000 lbs of bombs" came from.

Yes, I can honestly state that it didn't add extra weight (well maybe 400lb or 3% for the observer and seat) because, as I've stated, USN fighters with the same fuel and weapons load had approximately the same weight. Heck even the F4F-4 weighed almost 8000lbs with only 120IG of internal fuel, and if the airframe was redesigned to accept more fuel, then weight would inevitably climb. The fuselage of a large fighter aircraft is almost empty anyway so adding an extra seat was not a major source of extra weight...

I stated extra weight and size required to carry the observer, which did mean that the Firefly was bigger than it needed to be, meaning that there was an inevitable increase in the size and drag of the airframe, meaning more structural weight plus observer and seat and armour and extra equipment. An aircraft the size of the P-51 could carry as much, if not more fuel, than the Firefly yet had a far superior performance.

but the observer also contributed to the aircraft's combat effectiveness by providing extra visibility and by removing some of the work load from the pilot. Another factor is that long range voice communications were not generally possible in 1938/39 until 1942 so that morse code had to be used for long range com links, and this was very difficult for a single crewmember.

Yet somehow the USN and JNAF struggled on with overloaded fighter pilots who were unable to communicate properly and could not see around themselves well enough to know what was happening. The FAA was the only organisation that persisted with an observer in the rear cockpit who's only communication with the pilot was via a voice tube, in addition to which the observer didn't even have a peashooter to aid the pilot.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

An extra set of eyes in any aircraft is always a good thing but during ww2 in fighter aircraft, unless that extra crewman was aiming bombs or working radar, they were for the most part useless, exception being the Mosquito IMO.

 

[Shortround6]

Radios may have evolved quickly, I don't know for sure but apparently the US Navy didn't think that a rear seater radio operator was needed for future aircraft in 1942.

Work started in late 1942 but as usual it took a while and it didn't see action until 1945 in Borneo.

Catapult plane for battleships and cruisers.

The 1942/43 crop of attack planes were all single seaters or modified to be be single seaters.
The Douglas BTD Destroyer
Martin Mauler
Curtiss XBTC-1/2
Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK-1
Douglas XBT2D-1

So either something else was doing the scouting or the communications problem had been ( or was expected to be) Fixed.

 

[RCAFson]

It might? It is!!! - once the plane is trimmed and you're in cruise flight, no more difficult than calculating DR or talking on a conventional radio, even in light or moderate turbulence.

Be advised that some folks on here do fly and have done similar tasks while flying solo....

When one is in combat and getting shot at, the last thing you're going to do is worry about communicating, you fly the aircraft first, communicate when you can..

1. Aviate
2. Navigate
3. Communicate

Still the rule today...

The USN and IJN used 2 or 3 seat aircraft for recon; they didn't use SS aircraft. When a recon aircraft sights the enemy fleet, the first order of business to signal the sighting, and that signal is completely crucial to the success or failure of the subsequent operations.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The USN and IJN used 2 or 3 seat aircraft for recon; they didn't use SS aircraft. When a recon aircraft sights the enemy fleet, the first order of business to signal the sighting, and that signal is completely crucial to the success or failure of the subsequent operations.

Recon? - I thought we were talking FIGHTERS! Ex - Fulmar/ Firefly!!!

Look, you're backpedaling and now talking about things you know nothing about.

It's one thing to get vital information back to the fleet, it's another thing not to get your @ss shot apart. The first order of business to FLY THE AIRCRAFT! Without following the "three rules" the mission is useless!!!

Bottom line both the Fulmar and Firefly had their moments, but their concept faded into history until a second crewman could actually have a USEFUL place on a fighter without limiting performance and that happened a generation later, so all the "would haves" and "what ifs" and revisionist perspectives are interesting to discuss, but please stick to real facts instead of assuming things you know little about and trying to pass it off as gospel.

 

[RCAFson]

Recon? - I thought we were talking FIGHTERS! Ex - Fulmar/ Firefly!!!

Look, you're backpedaling and now talking about things you know nothing about.

It's one thing to get vital information back to the fleet, it's another thing not to get your @ss shot apart. The first order of business to FLY THE AIRCRAFT! Without following the "three rules" the mission is useless!!!

Bottom line both the Fulmar and Firefly had their moments, but their concept faded into history until a second crewman could actually have a USEFUL place on a fighter without limiting performance and that happened a generation later, so all the "would haves" and "what ifs" and revisionist perspectives are interesting to discuss, but please stick to real facts instead of assuming things you know little about and trying to pass it off as gospel.

I disagree, IMHO, the first order of business is a successful sighting report, that's why recon aircraft required a 2nd seat,so that the pilot could fly and the observer could signal and the RN wanted their fleet fighters to be able to double as recon aircraft.

 

[RCAFson]

Well then, how about showing us what you call the complete specifications and/or where the supposed requirements for extra loads, particularly the "2,000 lbs of bombs" came from.

We know that somewhere the aircraft acquired 3x the ammo load of the specs you provided. We know that Firefly and Fulmar could carry bombs, so somewhere someone made the decision to tack those onto the requirements. I don't have to prove that this is so, as we all have access to the specs via the web. We know that for the Fulmar that the bomb capability was not fully developed until late in production, and this was probably because Fairey didn't have time to fully develop the aircraft.

I stated extra weight and size required to carry the observer, which did mean that the Firefly was bigger than it needed to be, meaning that there was an inevitable increase in the size and drag of the airframe, meaning more structural weight plus observer and seat and armour and extra equipment. An aircraft the size of the P-51 could carry as much, if not more fuel, than the Firefly yet had a far superior performance.

The Firebrand, Corsair and F6F all weighed about the same loaded as the Firefly F1, but they also all have more powerful engines than the Firefly so the small increase dimensions in the Firefly was driven by the less powerful engines available to the Firefly.

The P-51 was not a carrier aircraft and operating from ground strips it could carry a heavy bomb load via a long TO run, something not possible for a carrier aircraft: compare wing area of the p-51 with the F6F and F4U, both aircraft with more TO power than the P-51. Comparing a P-51 to naval fighter is just plain silly.

Yet somehow the USN and JNAF struggled on with overloaded fighter pilots who were unable to communicate properly and could not see around themselves well enough to know what was happening. The FAA was the only organisation that persisted with an observer in the rear cockpit who's only communication with the pilot was via a voice tube, in addition to which the observer didn't even have a peashooter to aid the pilot.

As I have stated repeatedly the RN planned to have the Firefly in service in 1942, and in 1942 it is not inferior to either the F4F-4 or the A6M, since it was a better fighter than the F4F-4 in the typical altitudes naval air combat took place in, and the F4F-4 and Zero proved to be roughly equal to each other in combat.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I disagree, IMHO, the first order of business is a successful sighting report, that's why recon aircraft required a 2nd seat,so that the pilot could fly and the observer could signal and the RN wanted their fleet fighters to be able to double as recon aircraft.

You're entitled to your opinion but how are you going to sight anything it you can't fly and navigate to the target first?!?!

Again, I thought this was about FIGHTERS with a second crewmember? How about sending out Morse code while flying?

As I have stated repeatedly the RN planned to have the Firefly in service in 1942, and in 1942 it is not inferior to either the F4F-4 or the A6M, since it was a better fighter than the F4F-4 in the typical altitudes naval air combat took place in, and the F4F-4 and Zero proved to be roughly equal in to each other in combat.

So with that said I'm wondering how it would do against the Zero using RN tactics? My guess not that good!

 

[RCAFson]

AFAIK, the only air combat the Firefly engaged in was in 1944 and 45 when they shot down 6 Ki-43-2s and Ki-44 after attacks on Indonesian oil refineries and 5 Sonia DBs over Japan, all without loss. One Firefly was lost over the oil refinery, and where the Fireflys acted as strike fighters to suppress flak and as close escorts to the Avengers (where they shot down the IJN fighters) on the return trip to the carriers, after the top cover of F4Us failed to intervene in time.

 

[wuzak]

Just a random thought....

The USN used some Spitfires for gunnery spotting (during the Normandy invasion). If a pilot in a single seat aircraft can spot where shells land, surely they can spot ships in the ocean?

 

[RCAFson]

You're entitled to your opinion but how are you going to sight anything it you can't fly and navigate to the target first?!?!

Again, I thought this was about FIGHTERS with a second crewmember? How about sending out Morse code while flying?

So with that said I'm wondering how it would do against the Zero using RN tactics? My guess not that good!

That's precisely why the RN required a 2nd crew member, so that pilot's work load could be reduced and it makes sense to use the highest performing aircraft for recon, as they will have the best chance of survival.

The Firefly was the only allied fighter that could outturn a Zero and the Firefly did very well against IJN fighters during their only engagement.

 

[RCAFson]

Just a random thought....

The USN used some Spitfires for gunnery spotting (during the Normandy invasion). If a pilot in a single seat aircraft can spot where shells land, surely they can spot ships in the ocean?

So why didn't the USN, IJN and RN use SS CV aircraft for recon?

I have to depart for a day or so. Duty calls...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

AFAIK, the only air combat the Firefly engaged in was in 1944 and 45 when they shot down 6 Ki-43-2s and Ki-44 after attacks on Indonesian oil refineries and 5 Sonia DBs over Japan, all without loss. One Firefly was lost over the oil refinery, and where the Fireflys acted as strike fighters to suppress flak and as close escorts to the Avengers (where they shot down the IJN fighters) on the return trip the carriers, after the top cover of F4Us failed to intervene in time.

Ki-43s and Ki-44s, 1944, IJAAF. How about a Fulmar in 1942 against Zeros say at Midway?

That's precisely why the RN required a 2nd crew member, so that pilot's work load could be reduced and it makes sense to use the highest performing aircraft for recon, as they will have the best chance of survival.

What workload? Radios? A second set of eyes? Here we go again, are we talking recon or fighters????

The Firefly was the only allied fighter that could outturn a Zero and the Firefly did very well against IJN fighters during their only engagement.

Oh, I thought they fought Ki-43s and 44s? (IJAAF)

AFAIK, the only air combat the Firefly engaged in was in 1944 and 45 when they shot down 6 Ki-43-2s and Ki-44 after attacks on Indonesian oil refineries and 5 Sonia DBs over Japan, all without loss. One Firefly was lost over the oil refinery, and where the Fireflys acted as strike fighters to suppress flak and as close escorts to the Avengers (where they shot down the IJN fighters) on the return trip the carriers, after the top cover of F4Us failed to intervene in time.

So why didn't the USN, IJN and RN use SS CV aircraft for recon?

I have to depart for a day or so. Duty calls...

As Shortround stated earlier, eventually the USN did, at least in one example...

 

[Aozora]

We know that somewhere the aircraft acquired 3x the ammo load of the specs you provided. We know that Firefly and Fulmar could carry bombs, so somewhere someone made the decision to tack those onto the requirements. I don't have to prove that this is so, as we all have access to the specs via the web. We know that for the Fulmar that the bomb capability was not fully developed until late in production, and this was probably because Fairey didn't have time to fully develop the aircraft.

The following are your words, not mine:

it was the requirement for large internal fuel capacity and a 2000lb bomb load that required a large aircraft,

As I pointed out, quite correctly, the P-51 carried much the same fuel load in a much smaller airframe: the required fuel load did not dictate the size of the Firefly, nor did the need to carry bombs because this "requirement" was not in the specifications! Sure, the Firefly was adapted to carry bombs but this did not dictate the size of the aircraft. The Typhoon was adapted to carry bombs but the dimensions stayed exactly the same as when it was used as a fighter.

So, to avoid any further misunderstanding or need to repeat myself The extra size and weight of the Firefly was dictated primarily by the need to carry an extra crewman making the Firefly bigger than it could have been had it been designed from the outset as a single seater. As a two seater it was an okay fighter - as a smaller, lighter single seater in 1942 it could have been exactly what the FAA needed in the Med.

The Firefly was the only allied fighter that could outturn a Zero and the Firefly did very well against IJN fighters during their only engagement.

Seriously? Eric Brown said the Firefly could turn with its contemporary single-seaters with the FY flaps deployed - where does anyone say it could out-turn the Zero and where is the evidence?

 

[wuzak]

An extra set of eyes in any aircraft is always a good thing but during ww2 in fighter aircraft, unless that extra crewman was aiming bombs or working radar, they were for the most part useless, exception being the Mosquito IMO.

Don't forget the important task of pointing a peashooter for self defence.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Don't forget the important task of pointing a peashooter for self defence.